In their 2009 Children Language and Literacy, Celia Genishi and Anne Haas Dyson show us how we all use language to suit particular situations. Our standards, then, are never constant, but always tied to the situation at hand. On processes of standardization, they write, “institutions like schools work to suppress the inherent variability of language by authorizing uniformity” (13). Since schools consists of such diverse learners, from a variety of social and economic boundaries, they ask if this makes sense. “Would abandoning that norm and acknowleging the normalcy of difference threaten standards in our schools?” Their answer is no. Yet, as I write this, I find myself thinking about standards and the potential good they can serve. After all, here I am, at another UIWP, and standards are here: not always present, but often a piece of our demos.
Dyson and Genishi make clear that they don’t have anything against standards per se: nothing wrong with setting reasonable goals. But the problem, as they rightly see it, is that there is a tendency to imagine a generic child who speaks a generic language (and somehow I don’t think that child speaks with an accent, from Brooklyn or anywhere else). Their generic child is likely middle class and white. Diversity obfuscation….
I like this point because it recognizes the varied histories and backgrounds that kids bring to class. All kids do not begin in the same place. It seems so obvious to appreciate context, no? Thank you Genishi and Dyson for bringing this point to the fore, especially now when the pursuit of generic standards seems ever rampant.
It is a sad state, isn’t it. At we prepare for 2012 and 90%, I am holding out hope that common sense will win one day. Dyson for President!!